Leaving Beyond – Grounded In Scripture

Written by: April J. Buchanan

This is a subject I have returned to again and again. It is not one settled easily, nor one on which all who hold fast to sound doctrine, the authority of Scripture, and careful exegesis are agreed. Biblically qualified men differ here. Men I respect. Men whose handling of Scripture I continue to trust. Even among fellow believers in the pew, there is disagreement, and I find myself standing alongside some while differing with others.

I do not rejoice in that. I grieve it. It is no small thing to find yourself in even minor disagreement with those you know and love.

What I’m sharing here is not an exhaustive treatment of the subject, nor an attempt to argue it at length. It is simply an overview of my conclusion and the convictions I hold.

Yet I must be convinced by Scripture if I am to change my convictions. I cannot give verbal assent to what I do not truly believe the text teaches. And so, after revisiting this issue, and after reading and listening to what I understand to be the strongest arguments on both sides, I remain unconvinced that women may hold the office of deacon.

“Having revisited this issue and considered the strongest arguments on both sides, I remain unconvinced that women may hold the office of deacon, not because the arguments have not been heard, but because the text has not persuaded my conscience.”

There are clear distinctions between the office of elder and the office of deacon, and those distinctions matter.

In 1 Timothy 3:8, the word “likewise” cannot mean that everything stated before concerning elders now applies in the same way to deacons, or else deacons would also be required to be able to teach. The word carries the sense of similarity, not identity. It speaks to character, not to identical function or qualification. If we press “likewise” too far, we begin to blur the very distinctions the text itself maintains.

That becomes important when we come to verse 11. If “likewise” there is used to introduce women into the office of deacon, then we have already opened the door to arguing backward and confusing the qualifications of the offices altogether. The passage does not support that kind of reading. The more consistent understanding is that verse 11 refers to the wives of deacons, addressing their character because of their proximity to the work and the trust required in it. If anything, this sets my heart to prayer all the more for the wives of both elders and deacons.

Romans 16:1 is often used to argue that women may hold the office of deacon, but that is not what the text is saying. This is not a didactic text. It is not teaching or prescribing something. It is a descriptive passage and we must read it as such. The word diakonos is used in many places throughout Scripture to describe servants in a general sense. It is not always referring to the office of deacon. Phoebe is rightly commended as a servant of her church in Cenchrea, and that should not be minimized. But to move from that to saying she held the office of deacon is to import more into the text than is actually there.

Acts 6:1–7 gives us the clearest early pattern of what would become the diaconal role. Those tasked with the ministry of the Word were burdened with the practical needs of the widows and could not faithfully do both. So seven qualified men were chosen to serve in that official capacity. If there were ever a situation where women might have been appointed to such a role, it would seem to be here, given that the need concerned widows. Yet seven men were chosen. While the word “deacon” is not used in that passage, the pattern is consistent with what we later see in 1 Timothy 3.

Ultimately, the case for women serving in the office of deacon leans heavily on one verse in 1 Timothy 3:11 and an interpretation of diakonos in Romans 16:1 that is not inherently technical. I remain unconvinced. Not because I want to be difficult, but because I do not see a clear text that establishes it.

I know women who, if this office were open to them, would show themselves qualified and faithful. That is not the issue. But if I go against my conscience and what I understand to be the clear reading of Scripture, I would not only be violating that conscience, I would not be serving my sisters well by encouraging them toward something I believe Scripture does not permit.

If I wanted to argue in favor of women as deacons, I could do so by pressing verse 11 in that direction. But Scripture must not be made to affirm what we desire. It means what it means and says what it says.

As I read the immediate context and consider the whole of Scripture, including the clear distinctions in roles given to men and women, I do not see sufficient support for women holding the office of deacon. Women ought to serve, and they do, faithfully and indispensably in the home, in the community, and in the church. But the office of deacon, as I understand it from Scripture, is not one that is given to them.